Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SHARK" data-source="post: 435395" data-attributes="member: 1131">Greetings!Hmmm...well, Christ did what He did so that sin could be defeated, and man would be reconciled with a holy God. That is what Christ's *sacrifice* was for. Christ did not come to defeat the Roman Empire, but sin. That is like comparing apples and oranges, for Christ and paladins don't really compare.If paladins are chiefly concerned with spirituality and the spiritual defeat of sin, then they need not wear armor, carry weapons, or in fact do anything violent, because the struggle is spiritual in nature, rather than physical. As the Scriptures say, "We struggle not against flesh and blood, but against spirits and powers and principalities". That makes a good case for a spiritually-minded Monk or an order of clerics, but it doesn't seem fitting for an order of knights striving to defeat the forces of Darkness *now* in *this age*I'm sure the local citizenry appreciates such a paladin's sermons on righteousness, and redemption, and the pure life, but such doesn't defend them against the hordes of beastmen, orcs, monsters, and demons that conquer, rape, and plunder. There is a very real concern about the here and now, and if paladins aren't being effective in defeating the forces of Darkness on the battlefield, then they need to stay in their isolated monastery somewhere where they can peacefully pray, for they aren't going to be terribly effective on a battlefield, and they need not get in the way of warriors who want to make a real difference.As for the Arthurian legends, well, it should be noted that their conduct was considerably different when they were fighting *another knight* who also agreed to tournament-style rules and customs, than in an open, mass battle.In any event, Arthurian legends are nice for inspiration, but that begs the question--the enemies in a grim and brutal world are *not* going to be fighting fair, nor are they going to be necessarily fighting by the rules of the tournament. It remains that in such an environment, if a paladin commander insists on fighting with such quaint impositions, that an evil enemy can exploit such to the fullest, and crush the paladin and all of the forces loyal to him. Then, the people that the paladin is supposed to be defending, are raped, enslaved, and killed. Does it matter to them as they are being raped and crushed under oppression that the said paladin refused to compromise his idealistic views of not how war *is* but by how war *should* be? I don't think so. Somehow, the paladin's refusal to deploy effective tactics against an evil enemy is supposed to console them as they watch their daughters raped by beastmen, and their families shackled in chains? I think even in the game, "real" people want "real" effectiveness, not spiritual platitudes. From some real world examples, from Agincourt, where the French Knights insisted on fighting by a chivalrous manner, rather than think outside the box, and even do things that they considered "unchivalrous"--like using longbowmen, or many other more creative tactics--they instead suffered crushing casualties. Their families could care less about chivalry. Their sons, their fathers, their brothers, lay slaughtered and dead in the mud of Agincourt. That is the reality that they faced, and the following military and political ramifications that swept France. Likewise, in other conflicts, from the American Civil War, to World War I and beyond, the insistence on outdated, "chivalrous" combat got entire units slaughtered, and for nothing. They died because their leaders couldn't think outside the box, and they couldn't think of fighting war in any other manner than what their beliefs of chivalry dictated--regardless of what the enemy was doing, and regardless of the realities of war.In a similar fashion, such things can be seen at work on the fantasy battlefield, where the situation and the tactics at hand may require all sorts of thinking outside the box, and doing many things that are not "chivalrous". War often doesn't play by neat little theoretical "rules"--it is bloody, savage, grim, and brutal. He who has the best tactics, the greater force, wins. The rest are crushed into the mud of defeat and enslaved.In ancient times, the Romans conquered the Carthaginians in part because the Carthaginians insisted on using forces and tactics that were inferior to the Romans. The result was that Carthage was stormed, half the population was slaughtered, and the other half--mostly women and children--were sold into slavery forever. Carthage was then destroyed, tilled and sown with salt, and made into a wasteland. Noone lived there for hundreds of years, and Carthage was nothing but dust. The Carthaginians were not tough enough, smart enough, innovative enough, or ruthless enough to defeat Rome. Thus, they were swept into the dust and ashes of history.Of course, paladins can operate as anyone sees fit in their own campaigns, but it would seem that "plot protection" maintains their salvation against ruthless effective enemies that deploy all their resources in all ways possible to win. Such seems too much like "dues ex machina" to me. It isn't the paladin's spiritual beliefs that bring victory on a grim and brutal battlefield, but his weapons, his tactics, and what he actually *does* with those weapons and troops that determines who wins, and who loses. Another analogy would be the Imperial Japanese of World War II. They believed that their spiritual beliefs, their spiritual purity, their spiritual righteousness and their refusal to compromise their spiritual beliefs, would bring victory. In reality, such was no substitute for the United States' better weapons, better tactics, greater force, and the determination to use every bit of resource to bring victory. In the end, Japan was left crushed in the ashes of defeat. Their "spiritual" ideology, and their sense of chivalry as expressed in the Code of Bushido, did not save them.Likewise, in the game, it is not what the paladin believes, or thinks, that brings the victory. It is what forces, weapons, tactics, and will, that he deploys that brings victory. To insist on operating on the battlefield with tournament-like rules, in any real sense, would bring only defeat, unless the enemy also agrees to fight by the same constraints.That doesn't mean that the paladin must go out of his way to mirror the enemy, or "stoop to their level" but it does mean that the necessities of war will make real impositions upon the paladin's neat little idealistic world, and if the paladin wants to actually save people, and provide a better life for people, he had best take such grim considerations in mind and approach the battlefield being ready and able to think outside the box, for some elements of his cherished ideals have no business whatesoever on a grim and brutal battlefield. Semper Fidelis,SHARK</blockquote>

Verification